• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.48 no.4
• /
• pp.24-43
• /
• 2015

Since 2011, when Oegyujanggak Uigwe(Records of the State Rites of the Joseon Dynasty) were returned from France, which were looted in 1866 by the French Navy, national attention to our cultural properties abroad was explosively increased and public pressure has been mounting that those cultural properties should be returned in Korea. According to the statistics of "Overseas Korean Cultural Heritage Foundation" Korean cultural Properties, which exist in foreign countries, amounts 160,342 in total 20 countries. Among them about half of them are estimated to be illegally exported cultural property, these are to be restituted. However, in reality it is not so easy to restitute illegally exported cultural properties. For this, it needs to be established a long-term and systematic plan for return of cultural properties from other countries. This paper starts from such a critical mind and tries to find legal policy measures for the return of illegally exported cultural properties. To this end, the author first describes motive and aim of this research in chapter I. and overviews basic understanding and current situation of export of cultural property as well as means and methods of return of cultural property in chapter II. and then deals with international and national norms that are involved in the dispute concerned return of cultural properties in chapter III. Based on this research, in chapter IV., which can be considered as a key part of this paper, the author proposed nine legal policy measures for restitution of cultural properties from foreign countries. That is, actual condition survey of cultural properties in foreign countries, unified management and implement of export ID on cultural properties, fund-raising for the diversification of means of return of cultural properties. local utilization of cultural properties, joining in the multilateral conventions and expansion of the bilateral agreements, restitution and cooperation through international organizations, restitution through lawsuit and arbitration, training experts on restitution of cultural property and networking with foreign experts. Finally, the author summarized his opinion in chapter V. which comprehended researching the above.

• Journal of Public Diplomacy
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.27-52
• /
• 2022

Objectives: The neighboring countries of South Korea and Japan in Northeast Asia have interacted in both positive and negative ways, at times as close partners and other times adversaries, throughout their long and thorny history of extensive dynamics. The controversial dispute over Dokdo is one of the most critical issues evoking harsh tensions and arguments asserting wholly opposite claims. Dokdo is a small island between two coastal states, but significant in terms of territorial, botanical, and marine resources, and thus ownership of the island has become a point of conflict accompanied by a troubled history. But why has Dokdo been a source of conflicts and how should the controversial Dokdo issue be addressed in a way that fosters positive influence and co-prosperity? Methods: This study provides comprehensive and critical insights from a wealth of previous research and strategic suggestions for the Korean government. It utilizes the three perspectives of historical documents and political context, international regulations and legal frames, and public diplomacy. Furthermore, it applies these resources to negotiation theories and strategies to propose reasonable solutions. Results: This study suggests that it is important for Korea and Japan to try to build mutual trust through more active communication and interaction in order to understand each other before attempting to create a formal resolution via negotiation. In addition to these efforts, Korea needs to be ready for the inevitable need to take decisive action in terms of negotiation, using analytic and efficient strategies. The study proposes three solutions: 1) Strong Action Strategy, 2) International Legal Strategy, and 3) Public Diplomacy Strategy. Conclusions: From the perspective of public diplomacy, the Dokdo issue needs to be converted from a symbol of conflicts between Korea and Japan into a symbol of peace and co-prosperity. In addition to promoting a positive relationship between the two states, it can also contribute to the security environment of the Northeast Asian region and global peace.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to research the contents and issues of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Act of Korean Commercial Code in respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, comparing to the related provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The Montreal Convention in respect of the international carriage by air was adopted in 1999, and Korea has ratified the Montreal Convention in 2007. However, there is now no national legislation in respect of the carriage by air in Korea. Thus, the Ministry of Justice has prepared the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code in July 2008, and the draft legislation is now being reviewed by the National Assembly. The draft provisions of Part VI the Carriage by Air are basically adopting most of the related provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of cargo by air and some draft provisions are applying the related provisions of the Korean Commercial Code in respect of the carriage of cargo by land and sea. In respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air, the contents of the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by air are composed of the provisions in respect of the cause of the liability of the and the application for the non-contractual claim, the limit of liability, the exoneration from liability, the extinguishment of liability, the notice of damage to cargo, the liability of the agents and servants of the carrier, and the liability of the actual carrier and successive carrier. The draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code is different from the provisions of the Montreal Convention is respect of the liability of the carrier in the carriage of cargo by air as follows : the draft Article 913 paragraph 1 provides additionally the riot, civil war and quarantine as the exoneration causes from the liability for damage to the cargo of the carrier in the Article 18 paragraph 2 of the Montreal Convention. In respect of the liability of the carrier in carriage of cargo by air, the draft legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air does not provide the settlement by arbitration of dispute relating to the liability of the carrier and the requirement of adequate insurance covering the liability of the carrier which are provided in the Montreal Convention. In author's opinion, it is desirable that the above mentioned provisions such as the arbitration and the insurance shall be inserted into the draft legislation of the Carriage by Air of Korean Commercial Code. In conclusion, the legislation of Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Korean Commercial Code shall be made by the National Assembly as soon as possible for the smooth and equitable compensation for damage to cargo arising during the carriage by air.

• Strategy21
• /
• s.31
• /
• pp.27-56
• /
• 2013

The United Nations Command (UNC) and the communist North failed to reach an agreement on where the maritime demarcation line should be drawn in the process of signing a truce after the Korean War because of the starkly different positions on the boundary of their territorial waters. As a result, the Armistice Treaty was signed on July 1953 without clarification about the maritime border. In the following month, Commander of the UNC unilaterally declared the Northern Limit Line (NLL) as a complementing measure to the Armistice. Referring to this, North Korea and its followers in South Korea wrongfully argue that the NLL is a "ghost line" that was established not based on the international law. However, one should note that the waters south of the NLL has always been under South Korea's jurisdiction since Korea's independence from Japan on August 15, 1945. There is no need to ask North Korea's approval for declaring the territorial waters that had already been under our sovereign jurisdiction. We do not need North Korea's approval just as we do not need Japan's approval with regard to our sovereign right over Dokdo. The legal status of the NLL may be explained with the following three characteristics. First, the NLL is a de facto maritime borderline that defines the territorial waters under the respective jurisdiction of the two divided countries. Second, the NLL in the West Sea also serves as a de facto military demarcation line at sea that can be likened to the border on the ground. Third, as a contacting line where the sea areas controlled by the two Koreas meet, the NLL is a maritime non-aggression line that was established on the legal basis of the 'acquiescence' element stipulated by the Inter-Korea Basic Agreement (article 11) and the Supplement on the Non-aggression principle (article 10). Particularly from the perspective of the domestic law, the NLL should be understood as a boundary defining areas controlled by temporarily divided states (not two different states) because the problem exists between a legitimate central government (South Korea) and an anti-government group (North Korea). In this sense, the NLL problem should be viewed not in terms of territorial preservation or expansion. Rather, it should be understood as a matter of national identity related to territorial sovereignty and national pride. North Korea's continuous efforts to problematize the NLL may be part of its strategy to nullify the Armistice Treaty. In other words, North Korea tries to take away the basis of the NLL by abrogating the Armistice Treaty and creating a condition in which the United Nations Command can be dissolved. By doing so, North Korea may be able to start the process for the peace treaty with the United States and reestablish a maritime line of its interest. So, North Korea's rationale behind making the NLL a disputed line is to deny the effectiveness of the NLL and ask for the establishment of a new legal boundary. Such an effort should be understood as part of a strategy to make the NLL question a political and military dispute (the similar motivation can be found in Japan's effort to make Dokdo a disputed Island). Therefore, the South Korean government should not accommodate such hidden intentions and strategy of North Korea. The NLL has been the de facto maritime border (that defines our territorial waters) and military demarcation line at sea that we have defended with a lot of sacrifice for the last sixty years. This is the line that our government and the military must defend in the future as we have done so far. Our commitment to the defense of the NLL is not only a matter of national policy protecting territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction; it is also our responsibility for those who were fallen while defending the North-Western Islands and the NLL.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.33-52
• /
• 2014

Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor's alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor's investment.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.135-161
• /
• 2014

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone and also referred to as an unpiloted aerial vehicle and a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. ICAO classify unmanned aircraft into two types under Circular 328 AN/190. Unmanned aircraft, which is the core of the development of the aviation industry. However, there are also elements of the legal dispute. Unmanned aircraft are manufactured in small size, it is possible to shoot a record peripheral routes stored in high-performance cameras and sensors without the consent of the citizens, there is a risk of invasion of privacy. In addition, the occurrence of the people of invasion of privacy is expected to use of civilian unmanned aircraft. If the exposure of private life that people did not want for unmanned aircraft has occurred, may occur liability to the operator of unmanned aircraft, this is a factor to be taken into account for the development of unmanned aircraft industry. In the United States, which is currently led by the unmanned aircraft industry, policy related to unmanned aircraft, invasion of privacy is under development, is preparing an efficient measures making. Unmanned aircraft special law has not been enforced. So there is a need for legal measures based on infringement of privacy by the unmanned aircraft. US was presented Privacy Protection Act of unmanned aircraft (draft). However Korea has many laws have been enacted, to enact a new law, but will be able to harm the legal stability, there is a need for the enactment of laws for public safety of life. Although in force Personal Information Protection Law, unmanned aerospace, when the invasion of privacy occurs, it is difficult to apply the Personal Information Protection Law. So, it was presented a privacy protection bill with infringement of privacy of unmanned aircraft in the reference US legislation and the Personal Information Protection Act.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.27-48
• /
• 2011

The Chinese counterfeits has begun to gain great attention recently because of the drastic increase in its volume. The consumption of counterfeit harms to manufacturer who spend millions of dollars to create and develop new product. The counterfeits in Chinese can cause international dispute and lower national reputation. The purpose of this study were to examine if the buyers of counterfeits tend to care more about interpersonal relationship than non-buyers among Chinese. Data were gathered by surveying Chinese consumer living in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou metropolitan area using convenient sampling, and 480 questionnaires were used in the statistical analysis. In analyzing data, descriptive statistics, factor analysis, structural equation modeling with AMOS were conducted. The results of this study were follows, first, attitude toward counterfeits was classified into three factors such as interpersonal relationship, perception, and involvement. It is general belief that attitudes toward counterfeits were correlated with on brand attachment, however this study show that the buyers of counterfeits tended to purchase counterfeit goods as more alternatives of genuine(original) product than non-buyers. Perhaps, the buyers of counterfeits tended to have lower consumer ethics than non-buyers because they value counterfeit high. It is generally accepted that both a producer and a buyer violate the laws, but they are rather generous for buyer. The results of this study suggest consumers' attitude towards counterfeit need to be changed, following consumer education and strict law enforcement. Based on these results, global brand marketing strategies for luxury goods were suggested.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.327-353
• /
• 2017

The issue submitted to the Court of Justice on the merits of case C---573/13 originated from a claim brought in the context of a dispute between Air Berlin and the German Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations. The challenge concerned the way in which air fares were displayed in Air Berlin's computerised booking system. The system was organised in such a way that, after selecting a date and a departure airport, one would find all possible flight connections in a summary table. However, the final price of the ticket was displayed only for the clicked connection, and not for all connections, thus preventing customers from being able to compare such price with the prices of other connections. The German Federal Union took the view that this practice did not meet the requirements laid down by Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008, which requires transparency in the prices set for air services. This led the German State to bring an injunctive action to cause Air Berlin to discontinue said practice. The claim was upheld at both the application and appeal stage of the relevant proceedings. Subsequently, Air Berlin submitted the matter to the German Federal High Court, which decided to stay the proceedings and ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice as to 1. whether Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, during the computerised booking process, the final price to be paid must be indicated at all times when prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time; and 2. whether, during the computerised booking process, the final price must be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown. In a nutshell, the Court, by the here---discussed judgment determined that Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised air ticket booking system, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown. Clearly the above judgment will place air companies under an obligation to update and adjust (when needed) their computerised ticket booking and payment systems, in consideration of the primary need for consumers to be aware at all times of the actual price payable for a ticket and be able to compare the price of the service selected with the prices for other air services in respect of which the fare is shown.